Proc. 57th Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference, Athens, GA April 23-25, 2002
SPFCIC – Past and Future
Carl S. Hoveland, Crop & Soil Sciences Dept., University of Georgia
The Past
History is generally not a popular subject with most students. It is often regarded, even by many adults as irrelevant and useless information that has little or no value in modern life. History is a record of how human beings succeeded or failed in dealing with the challenges of their time. These records often can be useful in developing strategy for modern problems. Unfortunately, many politicians ignore the lessons of history and repeat the mistakes of earlier generations. Sometimes we do the same in our scientific efforts. Winston Churchill reminded us of the value of history in forecasting the future:
‘Learn all you can about the history of the past, for how else can you even make a guess about what is going to happen in the future?’
Old folks like me are often considered obsolete and not current with modern technology. Joe Bouton likes to remind me that even so, I am useful for three things: (1) Experience over the years which may provide information on current forage management, (2) having a large collection of old slides for him to borrow, and (3) teaching two courses that he would have to teach since my position will likely remain vacant on retirement. It is comforting to have some value even in old age. On this basis I will offer a few comments about the past and future of SPFCIC.
The Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference was organized and had its first meeting at the University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station at Tifton in south Georgia on July 23-24, 1940 with R.L. Lovvorn, North Carolina State University, as Conference Chairman. The next conference met at Raleigh, NC on July 19-22, 1941 with Glenn Burton as Conference Chairman. Two giants in the early days of SPFCIC were Glenn Burton, the breeder of Coastal bermudagrass, and E.N. Fergus, the father of Kentucky 31 tall fescue. No conferences were held during World War II with the third one at Lexington, KY May 23-25, 1946. Since then, conferences have been held annually, rotating around the 13 southern states and the USDA Beltsville, MD Research Center. Puerto Rican scientists were also active in the group for many years and one conference was held there in 1969. Over the years scientists from other USA states and a number of foreign countries have also attended.
The SPFCIC has been highly effective as a vehicle for exchange of grassland information and coordinating research and extension efforts on a variety of topics. It is an unusual organization in many respects – no dues, membership, headquarters, or permanent administrative structure. Conference attendees elect officers to organize the next meeting while the host university or research center are responsible for local arrangements. Expenses for the conference are paid mainly from conference registration fees, supplemented by grants from commercial companies. Each conference consists of a general program of speakers from the host institution and invited speakers on desired topics followed by work group sessions, and a tour. Length of the conference has varied, sometimes over two days but in recent years generally reduced to a day and a half.
At the first conference I attended, in 1959, some of the topics covered were: bloat research, methods of exploiting heterosis in forage breeding, leaf area index, subcellular physiology, growth chambers for forage research, chemical composition and digestibility of forages, and grass pellets for livestock feeding. A spirited panel discussion on rotational vs continuous grazing by three speakers: Roy Blaser of Virginia, Marvin Riewe of Texas, and Marshall McCullough of Georgia stimulated vigorous discussion by the audience.
Attendance at conferences over the years generally averaged 100 or more, sometimes reaching over 125. In recent years attendance has fallen substantially, reflecting the national decline in forage scientists. The strong support over the years indicates that SPFCIC met a need. In my own case, I felt that SPFCIC was the most valuable professional organization I attended. There are many reasons for this.
(1) It is the only meeting where the focus is on forages in the southern USA. Pastures receive much more emphasis than at national forage meetings. The meeting is small enough that people get to know one another and exchange information in an informal setting.
(2) Each conference is truly multi-disciplinary. Over the years it has brought together plant breeders, plant physiologists, plant pathologists, ecologists, animal nutritionists, chemists, and even economists interested in forages.
(3) A real strength is the mixture of research and extension workers, industry personnel, and soil conservation workers.
(4) The program is selected by a program committee, and speakers are invited. No voluntary papers are given. Many of the reviews by speakers assembled the latest information on especially important topics. Controversial topics furnished opportunity for audience and speakers to exchange views and enlarge our understanding of the problem.
(5) SPFCIC has been blessed with participants who would speak their mind, offering both substance and colorful debate. Some outstanding ones were: Roy Blaser (Virginia), Darryl McCloud (Florida and later USDA), Warren Thompson (Kentucky), Joe Burns (Tennessee), Elvis Beaty (Georgia), E.A. Hollowell (USDA-Beltsville, MD), H.W. Bennett (Mississippi), Doug Chamblee (North Carolina), Monty Rouquette (Texas), Henry Fribourg (Tennessee), Brady Anthony (Alabama), and Dave Bransby (Alabama). Conventional thinking on a topic was challenged and new ideas exchanged during discussion periods after a speaker had finished a talk.
(6) The local bus tours at each meeting location have often been a highlight, providing attendees an opportunity to view research facilities and experiments in progress. Some of the tours also included stops at interesting private farms and places of historical or cultural interest. Excellent food and libation in pleasant surroundings with good friends at the end of the day made for memorable experiences.
(7) The unedited proceedings of each meeting vary greatly in length and quality, depending on the author, but contain many excellent papers in their entirety. Many of them are not published elsewhere and are a valuable resource for both researchers and teachers.
The Future
Old people have gained a great deal of experience during their lifetime based on successes and failures which is supposed to give them wisdom. Now that I am well past the normal time of retirement at age 65 and supposedly joined the shuffleboard and golf cart generation, I am not so sure about any claim to wisdom. I share the feelings of H.L. Mencken, ‘The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.’ Nevertheless, since I was asked to do so, I will offer some comments on the future.
Grassland research has fallen on hard times in the USA during the last decade. Federal funding for most grassland research has fallen precipitously and much the same has occurred at the state level. Travel support for extension personnel has been cut. Financial support from chemical, seed, and farm equipment companies has sharply declined. Forage research and extension positions at universities and in Federal agencies have been eliminated or phased out on retirement of individuals. University faculty who at one time were supplied stable research money for projects in a defined area now must struggle for grant support in any area they can obtain money, often taking them away from grassland study. Some universities have virtually eliminated research or extension efforts in the forage area. As an example, the University of Georgia was without any forage extension position for over five years, a serious deficiency that was finally rectified by creating two positions where both individuals have plenty to do.
What does one conclude from this trend? Administrators in many universities and Federal agencies often do not view improved grasslands as an important growth area. There are several reasons for this weak support.
1. We in the grassland area generally do not have a strong commodity or lobby group to pressure for increased funding. Cattlemen’s associations are more likely to support animal science interests. There is a lot more glamour in cattle shows than in hay or pasture meetings. In Georgia, strong poultry, cotton and peanut commodity groups are able to secure strong support from the state General Assembly and the College of Agriculture for faculty positions and research support. The University of Georgia has an excellent research program in soybean even though the value of the small acreage of this crop in the state is similar to that of collard greens, a result of vigorous support by a soybean commodity group and strong national funding
2. The growth of large urban centers and decline in population of rural areas has greatly changed the makeup of legislative bodies so that voting strength of agriculture has been greatly diminished in both State and Federal governments. Agriculture today has little clout in securing funding.
3. State research universities have become more dependent on extramural funding for research programs and building construction. Thus, present emphasis is to encourage areas that have the potential to bring in large research grants that will supply overhead monies. Most grassland research offers only minuscule grant potential as compared to biomedical research with its strong funding. Biotechnology in the plant sciences has fared well but this offers little hope of substantial funding for researchers in forage ecology, management, and utilization. The future in these areas is not bright and it will impact negatively on training of graduate students who will be needed to teach terminal undergraduate agricultural students destined for practical work in extension and industry. I sometimes wonder if land grant university administrators have become so enamored with big money that they have forgotten their primary role of serving the people of the state.
Political and financial power will likely continue to reduce the strength of grassland research-teaching-extension programs. Agriculture will increasingly be a minor player in research and teaching programs at land grant universities unless persons in this area can attract large grants and more students. It is likely that certain agricultural areas will be phased out where support is weak for those programs. The results of this will be continued attrition of SPFCIC.
I believe that SPFCIC has served as a valuable organization over the years and can do so in the future. There are a few things that may help improve our prospects in the future.
1. Grasslands are an important component of our environment and make many contributions to our population other than supplying forage for livestock. This concept is not commonly understood. Grassland scientists need to do more to popularize the value of grasslands to the average person. Horse owners, mostly urban people with generally no understanding of agriculture, are generally receptive to information on how grasses grow, how legumes fix nitrogen, plant competition, and the effect of grazing on plants. This is a large group of urban people that could be supportive of grassland efforts. Ecological concepts taught in public schools often ignore the role of improved grasslands. An education effort is needed here. I do not know how to do it but I believe that it can be done by innovative persons.
2. Forage grass and legume breeding efforts by university, Federal, and private agencies have been greatly decreased in the last decade or two. We desperately need these programs for the future but only those that are innovative and produce truly unique and superior cultivars will survive and secure funding from grants and royalties. Outstanding forage breeding programs can supply cultivars for supporting research by animal and plant management scientists. A much better effort must be made to insure that adequately tested on stress conditions similar to that on farms. Cultivars must be good seed producers and supplies of seed need to be built up quickly to meet demand by livestock producers. Close links with seed companies will be a necessity for success. Outstanding cultivars that are in demand attract attention, produce royalty income, and can influence administrators that this is an important program.
3. Innovative extension programs attract attention. More efforts need to be made to reach urban people with an interest in the environment. We have an exciting area that needs publicity. The aesthetic value of pastures to urban people should not be ignored. A solid sea of subdivision houses lacks the appeal of driving through beautiful pastureland with grazing cattle.
4. Forages for wildlife is a growth area. Again, it involves urban people who are willing to spend substantial sums of money for a hobby. Research and extension efforts are needed here to combat a great deal of ignorance.
5. Some forage researchers will likely cooperate with other scientists in areas such as water management, pollution, waste disposal, and other non-forage areas to obtain money for programs.
There are calamities ahead of us. One can be either an optimist or a pessimist regarding the calamities facing SPFCIC. A pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity. An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity. I am still an optimist.
The SPFCIC is smaller but still viable. It serves forage scientists for information exchange, getting to know one another and what we are doing, and improving one another’s programs. The present is a tough time but I am an optimist and believe that the future is bright for grasslands. The need for better forage management has never been greater. It is our task to provide improved tools and the information on how to use them. As this need grows, it is just possible that someday administrators may again think grasslands are important.
Wisdom is not a common commodity among the masses of people. However, I feel there is collectively a great deal of wisdom among you to lead SPFCIC in dealing with the current problems. In closing, I would like to share a quote from Bill Smith, Editor of the Elroy (Wis.) Keystone Tribune:
‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can make a fool of yourself anytime.’